Wishing we didn’t have a problem is not a way to solve it.
Many times in life, we find ourselves at a crossroads. It can’t be escaped. We could choose neither option in an act of defiance, but that is a decision with its own consequences. So, we naturally begin considering paths forward to see if we can find a solution that we feel positive about. But when there are no “good” choices and the answer we want most (problem = disappear) doesn’t exist, every choice will feel like a defeat. Having to pick the least bad option creates a significant emotional struggle.
Sometimes, the best we can accomplish is to minimize the negative consequence. If money is about to fall out of your coat onto the street, would you rather lose a $20 dollar bill or a $100 dollar bill? I understand that you don’t want to lose anything at all, but you save $80 in reality if you lose the $20 and not the $100. That $80 savings is the part we need to train ourselves to value and feel good about.
Usually when I talk about the least bad option, people initially get angry with me. They insist there must be a good option and that I am being a negative Nelly or not trying hard enough. That insistence and resistance is dangerous and often harms you in the end. Here are a couple of real-world examples:
(1) A claim has been made against you that you feel is entirely frivolous. You would pay $2,000 to settle, but the plaintiff insists on receiving $10,000 to avoid litigation. Objectively, even that amount will be lower than defense costs, but you resist the negotiation for an extended period of time and make numerous arguments on why the claim is bogus. The plaintiff’s costs, time spent, and anger increases. Before a large escalation in the litigation process occurs, you finally agree to settle for $25,000 to avoid even more escalation. The refusal to embrace the least bad option cost you $15,000.
(2) A business partner with a significant history of friction and performance issues has sharply escalated bad service and conduct. The relationship has fractured and is no longer tenable. The stress on your staff has reached critical levels. However, you are afraid of ending the relationship and possibly beginning litigation and incurring legal fees. Rather than taking definitive action and invoking a termination without cause clause, you try to appease the partner and spur improved performance. Unfortunately, over time, the efforts give the partner more ammunition and attack points and further degrade the morale of your staff, who feel less valued than this bad actor. You engage your lawyer to advise you through the process, which continues to become more tangled and entrenched. The situation culminates in a breach of contract action against you and a defamation action against your staff. In six months, you’ve spent $30,000 on legal fees and face a far more complicated legal landscape than if you minimized interaction and used a clean termination right at the beginning.
When faced with a negative decision, the key is to let go of what you wish for and instead focus on how the damage of this problem can be reduced as much as possible. Mindfully associate positive feelings of success with achieving that best (i.e., minimized) result.
As Mick Jagger says, “You can’t always get what you want, but if you try sometimes….”
You get the best outcome possible.